4.6 Article

Impact of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation or Mechanical Ventilation as Bridge to Combined Heart-Lung Transplantation on Short-Term and Long-Term Survival

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 97, Issue 1, Pages 111-115

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182a860b8

Keywords

Heart-lung transplantation; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Mechanical ventilation; Heart transplantation; Lung transplantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mechanical ventilation (MV) can be used as a bridge to heart-lung transplantation (HLT). The goal of this study was to determine if pretransplantation ECMO or MV affects survival in HLT. Methods The United Network for Organ Sharing database was reviewed for all adult patients receiving HLT from 1995 to 2011. The primary outcome measured was risk-adjusted all cause mortality. Results There were 542 adult patients received HLT during the study period. Of these, 15 (2.8%) required ECMO and 22 (4.1%) required MV as a bridge to transplantation. The groups were evenly matched with regards to recipient age, recipient gender, ischemic time, donor age, and donor gender. The ECMO cohort had worse survival than the control group at 30 days (20.0% vs. 83.5%) and 5 years (20.0% vs. 47.4%; P<0.001). When compared with control, patients requiring MV had worse survival at 1 month (77.3% vs. 83.5%) and 5 years (26.5% vs. 47.4%; P<0.001). The use of ECMO (hazard ratio [HR]=3.820, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.600-9.116; P=0.003) or MV (HR=2.011, 95% CI=1.069-3.784; P=0.030) as a bridge to transplantation was independently associated with mortality on multivariate analysis. Recipient female gender was associated with survival (HR=0.754, 95% CI=0.570-0.998; P=0.048). Conclusions HLT recipients bridged by MV or ECMO have increased short-term and long-term mortality. Further studies are needed to optimize survival in these high-risk patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available